People v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An information was filed charging Enrique Fernandez, Dario Sitoy, Clemente Reposala, and Vencio Almonte with "Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide." The information alleged that on January 4, 1970, at about 10:00 in the evening, in Barrio La Suerte, City of Pagadian, the accused, conspiring and confederating, with intent to gain, by means of force and violence upon Sebastian Espelita, Sr., took P350.00. They also attacked Sebastian Espelita, Jr. with hunting knives, inflicting wounds on his chest, which would have resulted in homicide but for timely medical assistance. Furthermore, they attacked Sebastian Espelita, Sr., Dolores Espelita, George Espelita, and Alejandra Espelita with hunting knives, causing their deaths. Dolores Espelita was five months pregnant at the time of her death. The information also stated that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, defendant Enrique Fernandez, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty. The trial court informed him of the seriousness of the charge and the penalty. Subsequently, the court rendered judgment finding Enrique Fernandez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Multiple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, and appreciating the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victims and pay costs. The cases against the other three defendants were set for trial. The Appeal: This case is before the Supreme Court for mandatory review due to the imposition of the death penalty. The sole issue raised by the counsel de oficio for the defendant-appellant is the propriety of the penalty imposed by the trial court, considering the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty and the absence of any aggravating circumstance to offset it.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the presence of the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty and the absence of any proven aggravating circumstance. Whether the allegation that the crime was committed in the darkness of the night sufficiently establishes nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the trial court by reducing the penalty imposed upon the accused Enrique Fernandez to reclusion perpetua, with the accessories provided by law, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The Court found the point raised by the counsel de oficio to be well-taken.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the point raised by the counsel de oficio to be well-taken. The information alleged a plea of guilty, which is a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court appreciated this circumstance in favor of the accused. However, the Court noted that the penalty for Robbery with Frustrated Homicide and Multiple Homicide under Article 294, Sub-paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. According to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, if the prescribed penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty should be applied. In this case, the plea of guilty was a mitigating circumstance, and the Court found no sufficient aggravating circumstance to offset it, leading to the application of the lesser penalty. On Issue 2: The Court held that the bare allegation in the information that "the crime was committed in the darkness of the night" is insufficient to establish nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14(6) of the Revised Penal Code. For nocturnity to be considered aggravating, it must be shown that it was sought or taken advantage of by the offender to improve their chances of success in committing the crime or to provide impunity. The mere fact that the crime occurred at night does not automatically qualify it as an aggravating circumstance. Therefore, this alleged circumstance could not be used to offset the mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that when the prescribed penalty for a crime consists of two indivisible penalties, and there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to consider, the lesser penalty must be imposed. This principle is applied even when a plea of guilty is entered as a mitigating circumstance, and a bare allegation of the crime being committed at night is insufficient to establish nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance.